Not everybody works as hard, or has the same level of intelligence. That's over simplifying it, but it's true.

yep. pretty much.

Not every one thinks the same alos, for some people life is about the experiences not getting alot of money. But basically allows for the people who are driven and who are smart , to actually get rich. I mean think of the 1000's of ways of making money online atm, but most people are not bothered thinking of website to make and sticking to it for a year or two when it makes no money. Look at simplyshredded.com, that site was nothing 3 or 4 years ago, but it has exploded and the guy is getting 20k a month ...

capitalism is meant to keep us as slaves, so we can pay taxes until we die, to keep the economy going and further the military industrial complex. capitalism and democracy simply cannot exist together, money and greed is just too powerful to keep equality and balance.

Everybody is in a hurry to go nowhere. What's it all for? Get to the top and you're labelled some pretentious douchebag who is out of touch with reality. Stay at the bottom and you're labelled a lazy douchebag. And everyone in the middle bitches about the people above and the people below.

SO FUCK IT. JUST LET GO AND TELL THE HIERARCHY WHO CREATED THE MATRIX " I'M NOT PLAYING YOUR GAME---ITS SILLY!!!"

also, imo people generally are crap with saving money. if two generations save, the next in line can spend it all easily. everybody can't be "rich" of course, but many have the potential to save visciously and have substantial money.

think about it, a lifetime of working should generate enough income to put some spare money aside.

then you die and the children inherit whats left.

get the idea?

everyone should have plenty of money by now, how comes it isnt so?

its not the case in the western world, and it certainly is not the case in the so called shitholes aka 3rd world countries.

the majority of people are permanently broke-kint and live from paycheck to paycheck.

so, where is the problem?

I think you misunderstand capitalism - not surprising, really. I'll simply point one thing out: capitalism has been the engine that has raised the standard of living across the board. It's because of capitalism that that average people today can afford to live a lifestyle that Kings and Queens didn't enjoy and what were once luxuries are now disposable everyday items.

Capitalism only works ultimately for the rich or those who get the opportunity to step over others.

If you analyze America or China (which is today capitalist), the rich are getting richer, while the poor poorer.

The whole monteary system, credit system, banking system is at fault too. Interest is one of the greatest evils in society.

A rich person with money can make money off of money. While a poor person who even once makes a loan from that rich person may become enslaved through interest and just become poorer and poorer no matter how much they struggle.

before anyone bring up the argument that muslim banks dont charge interest on loans, they do, they just declare it as something else.

but i agree, chargin interest for a loan, surely a state musntnt charge interest to survive.

when a bank or some thrust gains money, its always,always at someone elses expense.zeitgeist is a bit of starwars meets communism imo.

were not quite there yet,also crime going away if everyones educated and moneyless system, i dont think so.

Well there is no 100% islamic establishment of a caliphate or islamic trade/economic system. It would be a disaster for the west it's one of the reasons of a war against Islam. It is the only system that stands against western liberalism and capitalism. Even as a monetary system, Islam endorses the gold/silver standard.

Gadaffi although not a religious guy -- in fact quite anti-religion in some respects (he bombed Muslim villages way before NATO shit) he wanted to implement a monetary system based on gold/silver/oil for all African and Middle-eastern countries. That's why Libya was invaded.

There are attempts to bring back islamic finance across the muslim world. There are indeed interest free banking options, hence some of the investment projects and organizations that were interest-free were not hit like western system backed banking institutions during the collapse of 2008.

On the other hand those that DID invest through credit/interest type systems such as UAE, got screwed real bad.

It is true that some institutes that tried to copy western systems but claim to be islamic were basically interest in disguise. This is not allowed in Islam and naturally backfired. Calling a turd not a turd, when it's a turd doesn't change it from being a turd. Interest is interest no matter how you reshuffle it.

The Islamic empire flourished through trade. Where real valuables are traded throughout the world, there is wealth in circulation.

When there is imaginary numbers, interest, bubbled up money upon money, circulation of wealth amongst elites, those less well off being deprived and leeched. There is disaster. This is the opposite of the islamic model.

Ironically while I was in school and studied different ideologies, I found good in capitalism, good in socialism and communism, but also a lot of evil and wrong in both. Both were extremes of the other. The Islamic approach is somewhere in the middle, taking the good from capitalism and the good from socialism.

Empowering the people as individuals while also caring for the less fortunate with the goal of establishing everyone, so that people are not beggers either and preventing people who attain position or establishment from ever exploiting others.

For example western countries tax 30-60% on wealth on average. In an islamic caliphate, Muslims pay zakat which is a charity that is to take care of the people around 2%. Non-muslims pay jizya which is basically a citizenship tax and is also around 2%. No one is taxed on goods they buy/sell/trade/travel with. So what you earn is your money, but you are obliged at the end of the year to contribute jizya and zakat.

There is also an establishment of a state treasury which is always there for projects for the nation, for infrastructure, for research, for construction, for well-fare, for emergencies (food rations for example, etc...)

However today there are only secular dictatorships and kingdoms across the Muslim world.

examples, oil industries buying patents for cars who dont run on gasoline, to blck the progress and squeeze out the market of oil some more.

The inventors behind those patents voluntarily chose to sell their ideas and I have absolute no problem with that. After all, when I invent something, it's mine to do with as I please. If I sell it to someone, it's his to do with as he pleases. If someone in the oil market bought a patent on some critical component for electric cars, which he then refused to license in an effort to squeeze the oil market some more, more power to them.

Since you mentioned electric cars, can you provide a reference to one such patent? I've heard this "the oil companies are preventing electric cars from being made" nonsense before and it's simply not true. The fact is that the technology necessary to make a practical electric car that can come close to competing with gasoline vehicles wasn't there up until very recently, and now that is, it still isn't very affordable. But that will change, gradually. Just the other day, for example, research showed that battery storage capacities and charging times can be dramatically improved with the addition of crushed silicone andoes.

or the banks who denied nikola tesla credits but gave credits-loans to the inferior thomas edison.

Tesla was brilliant you won't get any arguments from me; he shaped the future and he was a man well ahead of his time. And while Edison might very well be an inferior "inventor" he was the superior business man, and his contributions were equally important, although in a very different way than Tesla's were.

But the bottom line is that Tesla's work was valued differently by banks, who judged him to be more of a credit risk that Edison. Tesla wasn't the first inventor to face this problem and he won't be the last. This isn't a problem with capitalism.

No doubt. Capitalism is, after all, an economic system; it just happens to be the one that fosters and promotes technological progress.

Capitalism is based on one simple fact: that everyone's work has an objective value. It does nothing to block technological invention or progress.

The inventors behind those patents voluntarily chose to sell their ideas and I have absolute no problem with that. After all, when I invent something, it's mine to do with as I please. If I sell it to someone, it's his to do with as he pleases. If someone in the oil market bought a patent on some critical component for electric cars, which he then refused to license in an effort to squeeze the oil market some more, more power to them.

Since you mentioned electric cars, can you provide a reference to one such patent? I've heard this "the oil companies are preventing electric cars from being made" nonsense before and it's simply not true. The fact is that the technology necessary to make a practical electric car that can come close to competing with gasoline vehicles wasn't there up until very recently, and now that is, it still isn't very affordable. But that will change, gradually. Just the other day, for example, research showed that battery storage capacities and charging times can be dramatically improved with the addition of crushed silicone andoes.

Tesla was brilliant you won't get any arguments from me; he shaped the future and he was a man well ahead of his time. And while Edison might very well be an inferior "inventor" he was the superior business man, and his contributions were equally important, although in a very different way than Tesla's were.

But the bottom line is that Tesla's work was valued differently by banks, who judged him to be more of a credit risk that Edison. Tesla wasn't the first inventor to face this problem and he won't be the last. This isn't a problem with capitalism.

No doubt. Capitalism is, after all, an economic system; it just happens to be the one that fosters and promotes technological progress.

Capitalism is based on one simple fact: that everyone's work has an objective value. It does nothing to block technological invention or progress.

The inventors behind those patents voluntarily chose to sell their ideas and I have absolute no problem with that. After all, when I invent something, it's mine to do with as I please. If I sell it to someone, it's his to do with as he pleases. If someone in the oil market bought a patent on some critical component for electric cars, which he then refused to license in an effort to squeeze the oil market some more, more power to them.

Since you mentioned electric cars, can you provide a reference to one such patent? I've heard this "the oil companies are preventing electric cars from being made" nonsense before and it's simply not true. The fact is that the technology necessary to make a practical electric car that can come close to competing with gasoline vehicles wasn't there up until very recently, and now that is, it still isn't very affordable. But that will change, gradually. Just the other day, for example, research showed that battery storage capacities and charging times can be dramatically improved with the addition of crushed silicone andoes.

Tesla was brilliant you won't get any arguments from me; he shaped the future and he was a man well ahead of his time. And while Edison might very well be an inferior "inventor" he was the superior business man, and his contributions were equally important, although in a very different way than Tesla's were.

But the bottom line is that Tesla's work was valued differently by banks, who judged him to be more of a credit risk that Edison. Tesla wasn't the first inventor to face this problem and he won't be the last. This isn't a problem with capitalism.

We dont take kindly to your kind around here, what with you logic and reasoning.

capitalism is supremely efficient at allocating resources to where they are most valued and is the best economic system we have available to us. in theory a central command economy could be more efficient if governed properly, but in the real world there are far too many complex issues involved in the production and distribution of goods in order for a central command to be efficient. all that aside, it is the only system which puts individual liberty above all other concerns. which makes it vastly superior to other systems which try to achieve equality by means of reducing liberty.